A blog by Oleg Shilovitsky
Information & Comments about Engineering and Manufacturing Software

Top Five Disappointing PLM Technologies

Top Five Disappointing PLM Technologies
olegshilovitsky
olegshilovitsky
22 May, 2009 | 2 min for reading

Once in a while, industries, companies, or developers come up with something that they think will change the technological and product landscape. PLM is no exception in this lineup of excitements and disappointments. Here are five technologies, that disappointed me in the CAD/CAE/PDM/PLM world listed from least to most disappointing): 

#5 – 3D Search

The CAD and PLM industries probably developed the most advanced capabilities to create 3D models, design products and everything around us. But they are pretty unsuccessful at being able to find them, once designed.

 #4 – Viewers

One of the top requirements of PDM since the early days is the ability to view what designed without running a CAD system used to design a specific product. So, I’d expect that viewers should be a commodity. But, unfortunately, this is not happened and the ability to view products/models continues to be a challenge for an organization

 #3 – CAD Interoperability

The inability of CAD vendors to agree on how to exchange models continues to affect people in the industry. You can see people spending their entire lives translating files from one CAD to another. You can still find “translation departments” in organizations. Quite a large amount of companies in our industry still focuses primarily on interoperability. So far, it looks like this problem will be still with us for awhile…

 #2 – PDM/PLM to ERP Integrations

When I look at the problem of integrating PDM (and later PLM) with the ERP environment, I see that the same list of unresolved problems has remained for at least  the last ten years. New PDM, PLM and ERP systems have been developed, technologies for EAI, middleware, programming languages have changed, but the problem of how  to integrate PDM/PLM with ERP in a robust way still faces us.

 #1 – PLM Standards

This is my ‘favorite’ disappointment. Standards are like toothbrushes. Everybody needs them, but nobody wants to use those of somebody else. There is some correlation between this problem and CAD interoperability. There are a few more/less stable standards – STEP, IGES. But this space continues to disappoint me with the lack of an approach that can change the status quo of “yet another standard development” adopted by one or two vendors only.

 So far, this is my perspective on my disappointments. At the same time, I see each topic in my list as both a challenge and opportunity. And I’m looking forward to an interesting (rather than disappointing) discussion…

Recent Posts

Also on BeyondPLM

4 6
5 March, 2018

Collaboration isn’t a new word in a lexicon of 3D, CAD and PLM software. Sometimes, collaboration sounds a bit buzzy,...

12 September, 2018

I tried to visualize single tenant PLM model and global manufacturing. Here is the result and it looks ugly… The...

24 April, 2013

Do you think Big Data and noSQL are the last and coolest trend in data world? No way. Software architects...

28 March, 2018

I shared my thoughts how collaboration technologies and product development can make a dent into current PLM development trajectories. Digital...

24 January, 2020

PLM vendors are usually proud of the ability to scale up and support enterprise environments, complex product structures and sophisticated...

22 January, 2018

I want to continue my dialog with Jos Voskuil, PLM business consultant and PLM coach. If you’re just catching up...

6 April, 2010

Oh, yes… iPad is finally here. Do you think it will create new opportunities to PLM vendors? This is a...

24 October, 2016

Customization is a bad word in jargon of PLM implementations. The modern lingo brings us a new politically correct word...

7 November, 2017

The days when design was mostly about mechanical assemblies is over. It is hard to imagine a product today that...

Blogroll

To the top